Candidates' true worth is worth finding

January 14, 2008|By Dawn Turner Trice

A few months ago while working on a profile of Hillary Clinton, I had dinner at a downtown Chicago hotel with a group of her Maine South High School girlfriends.

The women, around 60-ish, were poised and high-octane, particularly when roused about their chum's presidential bid. They joked that they couldn't lie about their age because Hillary, whom everybody knows turned 60 last fall, was by association, putting their business in the street like never before.

The women call themselves the "girls" and it was clear as we sat around the table talking that they wanted the country to understand that their girl was much more than the wonkish, one-dimensional figure that often comes across on the little screen.

The friends talked about a Hillary Clinton few get to see. The woman who was so self-possessed in her youth that everybody knew she'd go far. The woman with the hair that's still as iron-willed as she is. The woman with the deep religious convictions that aren't worn on her sleeve.

This was the Hillary who had the knack for remembering the fine details of foreign affairs and HMOs as well as the lives of her friends and their children.

This, of course, was the more human Hillary Clinton, the one so many people -- from the pundits to pollsters -- say may have surfaced last week and turned the New Hampshire primary around. For some, this Hillary is more likable.

I enjoyed my time with "the girls" and believe me I understand why it's important to show Clinton's softer side. But, sadly, more and more elections are becoming big personality contests.

When Clinton embarked on her "listening tour" for her first U.S. Senate bid, her staff realized that she was far more personable in more intimate crowds. Even detractors tended to appreciate her intellect as well as her warmth.

In these groups, of about 150 or less, she let her hair down a bit. So last week, it followed for me that Clinton -- coming off a debate in which she was cornered and a loss in the Iowa caucuses -- simply had a moment (in an environment where she felt comfortable) and choked up when asked about how she was faring. It would have been an incredibly risky contrivance.

In the presidential race, likability always has been important. But nowadays it seems that likability isn't so much about the issues but about whether a candidate is black enough or emotional enough or even evangelical enough.

It's really scary. Tragic, actually.

Exactly how much do we have to like these candidates? Our current president was thought to have been ultra-likable. He was a down-to-earth guy, a regular Joe, right?

If we, the electorate, have learned anything over the last several years, it should be that likability is just a small part of the package.

What does matter is whether the contenders are smart enough. Whether they have a good grasp of what's going on in the world. Do they understand the world's various cultures enough to understand that being hawkish isn't always the answer? Do they get that in trickle-down economics -- the pipes have closed off?

Is your favorite candidate curious enough? Will he or she uphold the Constitution? Stuff like that. There are so many issues that need to be dealt with in this election.

As for the person who will get my vote? Well, since we won't be hanging out on the weekends or calling one another several times a day on our cellies, I don't care if he or she is so likable. I do care if he or she is capable.

We may never know for sure how much of an impact Clinton's getting choked up had on New Hampshire voters. But if that's what got her votes, it's a sad commentary on the litmus tests being used to measure a candidate's true worth.

If that's the direction we're heading, we're the ones who should be getting choked up.